Author Topic: Sigs are not Army?  (Read 23210 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 208,060
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,765
Re: Sigs are not Army?
« Reply #25 on: November 07, 2004, 12:57:01 »
Isn't [Signals] a branch?
Yes, and so are Engineers, Artillery, Armour, and Logistics.  However, none of these are "environments."  Lets not confuse branches with commands and environments.

Lets not confuse environments with commands.  The CF has several commands, including
  • land forces
  • maritime
  • air force
  • northern
  • communications

The CF only has three distinctive environments
  • Land
  • Air
  • Sea

Your branch is determined by your MOC.  Your environment is the colour of your uniform.  The command you serve under is reflected by the command badge on your uniform.  Personnel from all three environments can serve in any of the commands (although some specific MOCs may be limited in the commands they serve under).

« Last Edit: November 07, 2004, 13:41:48 by McG »

Offline Jack Neilson

  • Banned
  • New Member
  • *
  • 0
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 38
  • Sigs - retired
Re: Sigs are not Army?
« Reply #26 on: November 07, 2004, 15:33:12 »
At the risk of confusing things even more I feel a bit of Sigs history might be in order.  Prior to integration the Navy and Airforce had communications trades.  The Royal Canadian Corps of Signals was 100% army and covered all communications-like trades.  In 2003 the centennial of the Corps was celebrated but morphed into the 100th anniversay of Military Communications to accommodate the sea and air components.  At integration the C & E Branch was formed by adding sea and air trades to the existing Signal Corps trades, which created many problems and inequities.  For all intents and purposes the Sigs were disbanded and became a branch with three separate histories and set of customs.  In keeping with the political attitudes of the time the Army component was marginalized.  I assure you that any who served in the Corps, regardless of whether they continued on in C & E did, and always will consider themselves soldiers.  The devolvement of the CF back into a semi-preintegration form however, left the Sigs component as a service with land, sea and air types in one branch.  Sigs is now a branch of the CF in the same manner as other branches but is definitely not a distinct element  Unfortunately it has also changed from an Arm of the Canadian Army to a combat support Branch of the CF.
Velox Versutis Vigilans
Jack
Velox Versutus Vigilans

Offline meni0n

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 21,635
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 893
  • Soldier of leisure
Re: Sigs are not Army?
« Reply #27 on: November 07, 2004, 15:39:53 »
I'd very much like to see us go back to the Royal Canadian Corps of Signals.

Offline signalsguy

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 4,690
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 479
Re: Sigs are not Army?
« Reply #28 on: November 07, 2004, 16:18:50 »
Having been a signaller in the reserves during the CFCC and DISO period, and now being a regular force sig op (formely a radop) I have some insight into this:

The Comm Reserve are part of ADM (IM), but there has been talk about putting them under Army control, probably not a good thing because I think the militia units burn through their budgets, yet the commres always seems to have $$. The Joint Signal Regiment is under DCDS (I may be wrong, maybe VCDS) control, the 3 HQ & Sig Sqns and the ASG signal squadrons are Army units, and everything else is (more or less) part of ADM (IM). Now I work in Ottawa for an ADM (IM) unit but my trade is an ARMY trade, for career management we fall in with the Engineers, and are not considered a purple trade (that is insulting if you ask me) we are a hard army trade. The same with the linemen and the LCIS techs.

Although the reserve comm sqns don't fall under Army command, reserve sigops, linemen and LCIS techs are definitely Army trades. Yes, you can work in an air or sea environment (as can I but it would be rare) but you are still Army and not purple.

Offline Willy

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 34,920
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 398
Re: Sigs are not Army?
« Reply #29 on: November 07, 2004, 16:25:24 »
Just a Sig Op, Gryphon:

While I appreciate your loyalty to the C & E branch, I think you could find better ways to express it than by causing this tempest in a teapot.   

I am a communication reservist myself.   I therefore fall under DISO, and not FMC (or whatever it's called these days).   That is not to say that I do not belong to an Army trade, however.   Regardless of what command I fall under, I am classified, along with all other sig ops, linemen, and LCIS techs as belonging to the land environment.   The army owns those trades.   The command one is assigned to is for the most part irrelevant.   There are navy cooks on army bases, pilots aboard ship, and army vehicle techs posted to air wings.   The specific sigs trades I mentioned above are green, not purple, guaranteed, every time, regardless of place of employment.   So sorry, but you're pretty much wrong.

Offline Michael Dorosh

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • -1,215
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,770
  • Verloren ist nur, wer sich selbst aufgibt!
    • CANUCK
Re: Sigs are not Army?
« Reply #30 on: November 07, 2004, 16:26:32 »
The comm res is a seperate branch, as I've already pointed out.


A seperate branch of what?
"So, how's your sister?" -Brigadeführer Hermann Fegelein
 
http://www.canadiansoldiers.com
 http://www.calgaryhighlanders.com

Offline HollywoodHitman

  • "We're surrounded......Thats simplifies the problem" - Chesty Puller, USMC
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 5,657
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 662
  • Don't mistake aging for maturing
Re: Sigs are not Army?
« Reply #31 on: November 07, 2004, 21:10:51 »
I've seen guys from all 3 ELEMENTS involved in Comms work........I never did see what the response to the uniform and head dress colour question was.........

From what I have seen, if you're in a green DEU and a green beret........I'm willing to say you're in the ARMY........You issue a navy guy CADPAT, he still has on a different colour beret......They'd also have an anchor on their name tape......

Brutal.
"There is no charge for awesomeness....Or Attractiveness."
                  -Kung Fu Panda

Offline axeman

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 1,405
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 389
  • It's lonely at the top, but you eat better.
Re: Sigs are not Army?
« Reply #32 on: November 07, 2004, 21:53:36 »
Aint it though .  :cdn:
I'm not saying to kill all the stupid people . .. Just remove the warning labels and let nature run it's course

Offline Not a Sig Op

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 59,817
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,843
  • I'm just a musical prostitute, my dear.
Re: Sigs are not Army?
« Reply #33 on: November 07, 2004, 23:42:22 »
I've seen guys from all 3 ELEMENTS involved in Comms work........I never did see what the response to the uniform and head dress colour question was.........

From what I have seen, if you're in a green DEU and a green beret........I'm willing to say you're in the ARMY........You issue a navy guy CADPAT, he still has on a different colour beret......They'd also have an anchor on their name tape......

Brutal.

On the subject of berets, what of tankers, paratroops and MPs? They don't wear green berets, would you say that they're not in the army as a result? Of course not. The colours of their berets are derieved from tradition, orn the case of the MPs, perhaps a slight flair for higher fashion.

As to the uniform itself. What else would you change it to? No argument, the comm res is descended from an army origin, it's just that it's not actually part of the army now. The only notable difference is the command badge, rather then having the maple leaf with the crossed swords, it's got globe with a maple leaf and a sword superimposed on it. Wherein lies the major difference.

I should really ask a moderator to lock this thread, as it's getting rather silly. People seem to be getting offended for some reason. And I don't understand why. All I did was point out that the comm res does not fall under the army, but for some reason, people are seeming to think that I'm saying that being "army" is a negative thing, though you're welcome to read over what I've written, no where will you find me write anything negative about the "army", quite the opposite.

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 208,060
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,765
Re: Sigs are not Army?
« Reply #34 on: November 07, 2004, 23:50:08 »
No argument, the comm res is descended from an army origin, it's just that it's not actually part of the army now.
The Comm Res does not fall under Land Forces Command.   However, every member of the CF belongs to one of three elements: Land, Air, or Sea (AKA Army, Air Force, or Navy).   It just happens that the MOCs of the Comm Res belong to the Land environment.

I should really ask a moderator to lock this thread, as it's getting rather silly.
Done.